Posted Tuesday April 09, 2013, About: Swisher still stung by Bronx tale

Didn't Swisher indicate during the season last year that he wanted a Jayson Werth type contract? I'm sorry, but if you say that during the season how do you expect the Yankees to offer you a contract? He's not worth that kind of money but he's saying that's what he wants.

Posted Thursday November 22, 2012, About: Swisher jumping to Boston?

Oh, God, I hope the Sox give him the 7 years $140 million he's looking for. They finally get rid of dead weight and now they want to add more.

Posted Wednesday September 05, 2012, About: Yankees pinstripe 'Plan' in danger

Exactly. The Cano contract they need to offer would be worth a large sum, but it would be hard to justify enormous numbers for even Granderson because of what has happened due to the ARod and Teixeira contracts.

Posted Wednesday September 05, 2012, About: Yankees pinstripe 'Plan' in danger

As much as I love Swisher as a player, he's nowhere near worth the money he wants. If that's all he'll take then it's time to bid adieu.

Posted Monday August 27, 2012, About: Dodgers becoming MLB's most hated team?

I'm sorry but that title belongs to Red Sox fans.

Posted Monday July 09, 2012, About: Rivers: 'He should have stayed'

Well, it wasn't Ray Allen's decision to go to Miami. It was the league's conspiracy against the Celtics. No, wait, since the refs are obviously always trying to screw the Celts, he decided to go to a winning side.

Honestly, Ray Allen was offered double the money to stay in Boston, yet chose to leave. That should say all we need to know.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

Gah! I knew it! My plan is foiled. They are the injuriest team, though.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

My main goal is to remove that term from the discussion. I am trying to explain that you can't objectively determine the best team by having a playoff, whereas Armpit is actually saying the exact opposite.

As I wrote many pages ago, there is a very simple way to determine the best team, as best essentially means better than all others. In European soccer (where the league is large enough) each team plays every other team once at home and once away. The team with the best record at the end of that entire season is thus the best team overall. Simple. This, or some variation, is possible in many American sports (baseball, hockey, basketball). My problem is that people seem to attach the word 'best' to the winner of the playoffs, and that is the most asinine thing in sports next to valuing an individual player's worth on how many championships his team has won.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

I say St Louis was squishier. They never played each other so let the arguing begin about which team was squishier.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

I'm done with you. Not only are you actively upsetting me, your lack of a solid grasp on mathematics bothers me even more. I hope you've just been trolling me this whole time. Otherwise I'm very afraid.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

You are infuriating. How many times to I need to write this? Obviously the goal of every team is to win the game at the end of the season. The point is that the best overall team does not always do that. The best team, in my eyes, would be a team which performs better over the course of an ENTIRE season as opposed to one who gets hot at the right time.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

EXACTLY! This is exactly why, despite what many people will say, the best team in college football will not always be the team which wins this playoff.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

I can start listing NCAA tournament results where the best team routinely does not win the championship. I just gave you four examples in the last five years where arguably the better team lost because it came down to one game. I'm curious as to how you can choose to simply ignore that. A team can have a bad game and still be a better team. One-and-done does nothing to determine the better team.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

If you don't see a team which performs better over the course of an entire season as being a better team than one which does better over a four-week period, then all hope is lost on you. You are a true member of the ESPN generation, and I feel sorry for you.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

2011 Packers were 15-1, lost to a 9-7 Giants team (who they had beaten earlier that same season)
2010 Atlanta was 13-3, lost to a 10-6 Packers team (who they had beaten earlier that same season)
2008 Carolina was 12-4, lost to a 9-7 Cardinals team
2007 New England was 16-0, lost to a 10-6 Giants team who didn't even win their own division (who they had beaten earlier that same season)

Shall I continue?

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

The Giants had a better post-season. When the goal of every team is to win one game at the end of the season then it is impossible to determine who the best team really is. When any team just needs to make it to the playoffs and then get hot, you can't possibly claim the winner of the playoffs as the 'best' team.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

We're saying the same thing. What I'm saying, though, is that is what the BCS tried to do. People wanted to have a clear-cut 'best' team by having #1 vs #2. The bowl system previous to that was unsatisfying. Now what is the motivation to go to a playoff?

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

And I would argue that the Packers were a better team. The Packers went 15-1, including a win in New York on December 4. Then, just because they lost to the Giants on January 15, they are the better team?

You are going to also argue that the Giants were better than the Patriots in 2007?

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

But what happens if five teams all have one loss? Say four teams lost in the first game of the season, and one lost in the 11th. The fifth team would obviously be left out, but who's to say they're not the best team? If we went to 8 playoff teams, what would happen if the 8th and 9th both had only two losses? The only solution to those who want a playoff is to have one huge playoff starting in September.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

Yes, yes, and yes. Unfortunately, though, too many people confuse said National Champions with the best team. If I were to ask any 10 random people on the street who the best team in the NFL last season was, I would bet 70% would say the Giants simply because they won the Super Bowl.

Posted Wednesday June 27, 2012, About: New playoff doesn't solve the problem

I'm not going to answer the same question three times. Figure it out for yourself.